This museum is a jubilee of fascinating inclination that
don’t work. It houses opposite examples of a impolite talent of inventors
who refused to let their meditative be intimidated by a laws of nature, remaining
optimistic in a face of plain failures. Watch and be vacant as we bring
to life individualist and even perplexing incessant fit machines that have
remained resolutely idle given their inception. Marvel during a ingenuity
of a tellurian mind, as it reinvents a block circle in all of a possible
variations. Exercise your mind to nonplus out accurately given they don’t work
as a inventors intended.

This, like many pages during this site, is a work in progress. Expect revisions
and serve of new material. Since these pages are created in pieces and pieces
over a prolonged duration of time, there’s firm to be some use of ideas.
This competence be irritating to those who review from commencement to end, and competence be
just glorious for those who review these pages in pieces and pieces.

Galleries

The Physics Gallery, an educational tour. The production of infeasible inclination and a production of a genuine world.

Related Galleries.

Gallery of artistic impossibilities.

Gallery of 3d stereo artistic impossibilities.

Donald Simanek’s Front Page.

Web resources.

Deceptions by Peter Parsons. We don’t speak many about counsel contemporary scams and deceptions on these pages. We don’t have to, for this glorious site debunks them thoroughly. Click on a “scams” add-on for more. The site also has information on both genuine and fake appetite saving strategies.

The Main Gallery

It’ll never work!

Overbalanced wheels.

Stevin’s problem.

More on Stevin’s Principle.

Friction and idealizations.

Tapping quantum weirdness. NEW!

What about giveaway energy?

Buoyancy engine 1.

Buoyancy engine 2.

Buoyancy engine 3.

Buoyancy engine 4.

Capillary motor.

Capillary wheels.

George Sinclair’s siphon.

The Schadewald sobriety engine.

Simanek’s bouncing spin engine.

Gravity defense engine.

The Classic captivating defense engine.

Links to other sites.

Bibliography.

It’ll never work!

Closed-cycle mill, 17th century.

The tenure “perpetual fit machine” has several definitions.

Any device that continues a fit forever, nonetheless any speed reduction. This is
a verbatim interpretation of a words.

Any device whose operation would violate determined laws of physics, or would count on quite suppositional laws opposite to physics. This is a local usage.

A appurtenance that eternally puts out some-more appetite than it takes in. Nowadays this is
called an “over-unity machine” given a appetite potency would be incomparable than one.

I will embody a final dual of these underneath a tenure “unworkable devices”. The initial one
does not violate any elemental physics, nonetheless it does not start in large-scale structures given of dual contribution of nature: (1) no materials are ideally firm bodies and (2) attrition and other energy-dissipative processes are always present. The customarily systems we know of, such as atoms, that seem to vaunt consistent appetite and transformation eternally (if undisturbed) are such a inlet that we can't directly establish presumably there’s unequivocally any motion going on within them. Our regard is not with these, nonetheless with systems that would appear to violate production laws on a perceivable scalemachines that have intermittent operation and could be finished to furnish useful work forever, nonetheless appetite input.

Perpetual fit appurtenance proposals are mostly discharged by scientists in a demeanour that
appears to a layperson as reckless rejecting regulating peremptory assertions that
such machines are taboo from operative by a “laws of thermodynamics”.
This does not infer a chairman who “knows” a little physics, nonetheless considers
the laws of thermodynamics a bit mysterious. The unequivocally impression of such laws
is off-putting to a normal person, given they have an atmosphere of finality
and negativity.

Thermodynamics laws and charge laws have good appetite given they allow
us to envision certain things about a complement nonetheless examining all aspects
of a mechanism. They even concede assured predictions in provoke of a ignorance
of some sum or initial problems in examining them. The experienced
scientist will use these to import a due device, that seems to a non-scientist
to be a disaster to cruise all a details.

Of march physicists don’t explain that any production laws paint final and
unalterable truth. The incessant fit (PM) appurtenance contriver pounces on
this and says “Such laws would have us give adult perplexing to learn anything
new! What if there were a smirch in these laws, a smirch that we could learn and
exploit?”

It’s a chronological fact that a laws of thermodynamics were essentially proposed
to report a fact that all prior attempts to grasp incessant motion
had failed. We’ve schooled some-more about these laws given then, and have a much
better bargain of them and given they are so absolute in describing what
can and can’t start in nature.

Any sold exemplary automatic PM appurtenance can be shown to be unsound in concept
or execution by distant easier and decisive means. The apparent approach is to simply exam a appurtenance to see if it lives adult to a inventor’s claims. Fraudulent claims
may infrequently be unprotected this way. But a inventor’s common greeting to a disaster of his device is to say, “It customarily needs a bit some-more work to labour and urge a pattern or revoke a friction.”

On another spin are proposals that haven’t nonetheless been built. Such
proposals competence come from honest (though maybe misguided) people who know
some production or engineering (but not enough). How can we establish whether
these are value a time and difficulty to develop? We competence not have to go to the
trouble and responsibility of building them. Perpetual fit proposals can
be shown to be formed on unsound reasoning, or on disagreement or
misapplication of apparent and well-tested facile laws and beliefs of
physics.

This can be a useful use for meddlesome laypersons, and for high school
and beginner college students holding physics, even before they have been
exposed to a laws of thermodynamics. My purpose, in this document, is to
subject some of a exemplary incessant fit appurtenance proposals to such analysis. In the
process we will come to improved know a facile production laws, and understand
how they can be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misapplied. This use can
strengthen one’s bargain of physics.

I will be meddlesome in examining examples of these classes of proposals
and claims:

(1) Devices that are claimed to sojourn in continual fit nonetheless input
of appetite and nonetheless producing outlay work. Obviously such inclination would require
energy to get them moving, nonetheless 0 thereafter. This outline is nothing
more than a matter of what perpetual motion means. These inclination (if they indeed worked)
would have no purpose other than to dazzle onlookers and provoke physicists and engineers.
Such inclination would not indispensably violate any elemental production laws or principles. Stable
atoms are earthy objects whose inner processes continue eternally without
loss of energy, if a atom is not disturbed. So they are examples of “perpetual
motion” (moving forever), nonetheless in a production novel these aren’t called
“perpetual fit machines”. That tenure is indifferent for a device that would
violate one or some-more of a laws of thermodynamics. This is given a word
“machine” is indifferent for inclination that furnish an outlay of useful work, while these
continually branch systems don’t outlay any work and therefore aren’t machines.

Some folks bring a fit of planets around a vigilant as an instance of incessant motion. On a perceivable scale we can uncover that incessant fit isn’t happening, even nonetheless watchful around for an eternity. If a fit of a complement is celebrated for a calculable time and found to be dwindling in speed,
then clearly it is losing appetite continually, and can’t pierce perpetually. This is a box even
for a solar system, as automatic appetite and tidal deformations waste automatic appetite into thermal energy. There are no perceivable (large scale) mechanisms famous that pierce nonetheless negligence down, and it is customarily due to those
ever-present appetite dissipative processes such as friction. The
fact that these dissipative processes are always benefaction is a fact of nature, nonetheless we don’t usually
elevate that fact to a standing of a “law of nature”. This fact, however, is not a solitary means of
failure of all incessant fit appurtenance proposals, as we will see.

(2) Devices that are claimed to sojourn in fit nonetheless appetite submit while still
producing outlay energy. Such due inclination competence need a pull to get
them started, nonetheless no submit appetite thereafter. This is a kind of machine
inventors seek. Sometimes a contriver refuses to undo a starter
battery after a appurtenance is moving. This is suspicious.

(3) Devices that need appetite submit to sojourn in motion, nonetheless are claimed
to furnish outlay appetite incomparable than a submit energy. These days some folks
call these “over-unity” machines, given their inventors explain they have
energy efficiencies incomparable than one. Clearly such a appurtenance (if it existed) could
be engineered to be a category (2) appurtenance by simply ludicrous partial of a output
energy and feeding it behind to a submit to expostulate a machine. Curiously,
inventors who explain to have finished an over-unity appurtenance conflict any suggestions
that they do this in sequence to conclusively infer their claims for a machine.
This is also suspicious.

(4) Devices that daub some suppositious concept all-pervasive “free energy”
that a inventors suppose fills all of space. Back in a 19th century
it used to be a energy
of a luminiferous sky that was presumably being tapped. Now that we
no longer take a existence of a sky severely these folks claim
to be drumming some arrange of “energy
of a vacuum.” Anyway, they claim, it’s “out there” and giveaway for a taking.
If there unequivocally were such an appetite source, these machines wouldn’t be violating
any earthy laws. Unfortunately a presumed source of appetite is mostly concocted just
to fit a functions of a inventor, and is wholly a product of a inventor’s
imagination, unsupported by any other individualist evidence. So, to a objective
observer, these machines are experimentally and theoretically indistinguishable
from form (3).

Since inventors (seekers) of giveaway appetite inclination explain that such machines do have
appetite input, they reject a tag of “perpetual-motion machines”. They
also reject any suspicion that they could divert
some outlay appetite to a yield a compulsory input, on a forgive that a machines are only
means of holding in appetite from a “free energy” source, or that a “free
energy” is of a subtly opposite impression from typical energy.

Scientists systematise PM machines by anxiety to a thermodynamics laws
they would violate.

Perpetual fit machines of a initial kind violate a initial law of thermodynamics. They furnish some-more appetite outlay than input, that is, they have an potency incomparable than one.

Perpetual fit machines of a second kind violate a second law of thermodynamics. They would engage 0 or disastrous changes of entropy.

I won’t use this sequence much, for we wish to equivocate any interest to the
laws of thermodynamics in this document. My vigilant is to uncover that all unworkable
devices violate some-more elemental laws, laws that have been well-tested,
well-established,
and well-integrated into earthy theory. Usually these are laws presented in undergraduate
physics textbooks. But a examples we intend to analyze
are those that are given unsound investigate in customary books and articles.
Many were creatively due not as germane machines, nonetheless as crafty challenge
puzzles and paradoxes to exam bargain of earthy principles.

Top

Overbalanced wheels.

The overbalanced circle incessant fit suspicion apparently originated in India,
in a 8th century CE. In his Sysyadhivrddhida Tantra (748 CE) a Indian astronomer Lalla described a self-rotating circle driven by mercury relocating along a winding spokes.

A transformation of this suspicion was described by a Indian
author Bhaskara (c. 1159). It was a circle with containers of mercury
around a rim. As a circle turned, a mercury was ostensible to pierce within
the containers in such a approach that a circle would always be heavier on one
side of a axle. [GIF by Hans-Peter Gramatke, used with permission.]

This suspicion appears again in Europe in a year 1235 when a French architect
Villard de Honnecourt described an overbalanced circle with hinged hammers
equally spaced around a rim. The pattern displays obscure perspective.
The circle is indeed ostensible to be perpendicular to a support and to the
horizontal axle. Villard’s outline (translated) is:

Many a time have crafty workmen attempted to plan a circle that should
spin of itself; here is a approach to make such a one, by means of an disproportionate number
of mallets, or by quicksilver.

The anxiety to quicksilver (the potion member mercury) indicates that Villard
was informed with a Bhaskara device, whose pattern had reached Europe by approach of Arabia. Villard claimed his appurtenance would be useful for sawing timber and
raising weights.

Villard’s blueprint shows 7 hammers, and he insisted
on an peculiar (uneven) array of hammers, explaining

…there will always be 4 on a downward side of a circle and customarily 3 on
the roof side; so a racket or bag will always tumble over to a left
as it reaches a top, ad infinitum.

But, presumably a array of hammers is peculiar or even, such a circle comes to
rest unequivocally soon. You have to give it a forceful pull to make it govern even one revolution.

This “overbalanced
wheel” suspicion reappeared in an strange accumulation of forms over a centuries.
We uncover a improved blueprint from a after time. A complement of pegs or stops was
required to reason a hammers during a vast stretch from a spindle after they
flipped over a tip and concede them to hang openly as they came around the
other side. Perhaps a ground was that a balls had some-more impulse (of
inertia) on one side due to a incomparable pull arms (even nonetheless a principles
of torque hadn’t nonetheless been formalized during this time).

Even nonetheless there are fewer balls on one side of a spindle during any given position,
these have incomparable pull arms and therefore incomparable torque. As a produce swings
and falls nearby a tip of a wheel, a circle slows during a produce fall,
then gains some speed when a produce hits a peg. There’s no net benefit in
speed, and there’s irrevocable appetite detriment when hammers strike pegs. If given
a push, a circle will spin jerkily for a while. If it were given a very
forceful initial push, a hammers would assume radial positions and the
wheel would spin many some-more uniformly and efficiently, nonetheless would gradually
lose speed and rotational appetite given of atmosphere drag and temperament friction,
just as any spinning circle would.

We have mostly used accounts of Villard’s bargain of a principles
of this machine. However, we do not consider that a folks who were fascinated
with this suspicion were unknowingly of a immobile change condition of a wheel.
I assume that they ostensible a circle would customarily work after it was manually
set in motion, with a hammers giving it additional boost as they discerning flipped
across a top, maybe (they competence have thought) this was due to some “advantage”
obtained from a fit of any weight flipping to a position with a larger
lever arm.

This flipping transformation is much
like that of a wire that gives a chairman a ability to chuck a indent a greater
distance, or a wire encircle engine mortar famous as a Trebuchet. Honnecort
wrote about these machines of war, describing one with an 8x12x12 feet box
of silt as counterweight (which could import 80 tons). Some had arms 50 feet
long and were means of slinging a 300 bruise indent 300 yards. This connection
to a overhanging hammers of Honnecort’s circle and Trebuchets is conjecture on my part, unsupported by any chronological investigate I’ve seen.

Even nonetheless a wire transformation of a Trebuchet allows a incomparable potency of
energy acclimatisation compared to a rigid-arm catapult, a appurtenance still puts
out no some-more appetite than that of a descending weight that drives it. Modern
Trebuchets (built by hobbyists) have achieved appetite acclimatisation efficiencies
of incomparable than 65%.

The overbalanced circle suspicion was re-invented many times over a centuries,
sometimes in fantastically elaborate variations. None ever worked as
their inventors intended. But wish never dies. I’ve seen examples made
by nation blacksmiths and groundwork tinkerers. The exemplary mechanics necessary
to investigate automatic systems is now good known, and when one takes a trouble
to do this there’s no poser during all given they don’t spin forever, and no
reason given they should.

Top

Simon Stevin’s problem

Flemish mathematician and operative Simon Stevin (1548-1620) formidable the
principles of mechanisms and machines. He was a forceful censor of many of
Aristotle’s mechanics; his possess studies were some-more in a Archimedian tradition.

One of Stevin’s many acclaimed contributions to mechanics was his use of a
chain of balls (clootcrans) on dual prone ramps as a means for developing
a routine of what we would now call a force parallelogram.

Stevin finished use of this ball-chain in a artistic way. He forthrightly asserted
that any suspicion that a sequence competence pierce of a possess settle was apparently absurd. He
gives no reason for this, maybe presumption that 0 was necessary. Perhaps
underlying this was a fact that if a sequence were to pierce a stretch equal to
the subdivision of a balls (in presumably direction), a new position would be
identical to a prior one. In effect, no earthy change had occurred, therefore
it won’t start nonetheless outmost influence. If so, this is an early use of what is today
known as a “principle of practical work”, or infrequently “Stevin’s principle.”

Taking his starting indicate as a fact that a sequence does not pierce perpetually,
Stevin subsequent a allied of a formidable law of combination of forces.
Stevin deliberate this to be so critical that this pattern of a ball-chain appears
on a pretension page of Stevin’s book on mechanics, as his “trademark”.

Stevin’s feat was an early instance of how one can delicately analyze
a automatic complement to establish presumably (and how) it works. Stevin accomplished
this prolonged before a matrix methods of force investigate was understood, and before plan of charge of appetite and a laws of thermodynamics. Stevin also adopted a useful tactic of examining mechanisms in a “ideal” box where attrition is insincere absent.

Some books bring this as Stevin’s explanation of a stupidity of incessant motion. That
was not a case, for Stevin simply assumed a stupidity of incessant motion,
at slightest in this situation.

Top

More on Stevin’s principle

Stevin’s element is useful for problems in equilibrium, and is mathematically
equivalent to force analysis. In a automatic complement where things are free
to move, will they? One approach to find out is to mathematically investigate a sum of forces
on any partial of a complement (and also do a same for torques). If they supplement to zero, a tools won’t accelerate.

Stevin’s element allows us to do this in an swap (yet equivalent)
way. The routine starts by devising a “virtual displacement” of a system,
then calculate a net work during this “virtual”
motion. This is called a “virtual work”. If a net practical work is zero,
the complement is in equilibrium, and will not
accelerate. In use a investigate is customarily carried out by imagining
very little displacements.

[The practical displacements need not be tangible or even approaching ones. For example,
to calculate a tragedy force in a overpass girder, one competence suppose a girder
being damaged or cut and a pieces that are authorised to move.]

This routine is quite useful for systems that are frictionless or
nearly so. This is ideal for examining incessant fit appurtenance proposals. It’s a Gedanken
(thought) experiment, nonetheless when no operative indication of a appurtenance is supplied,
that’s all we have to work with. We suppose a complement to be frictionless
(giving a contriver a advantage) afterwards if we can uncover that even with this
advantage a appurtenance still can’t work as claimed, we can consign
the offer to a Museum of Unworkable Devices.

Before we
return to Stevin’s problem of a double ramp and sequence let’s initial consider
the associated problem of a double ramp of tallness z and ramp lengthsx and y. Let’s contend that x y. A weightA is on a x ramp and a weight B is on thez ramp. They are connected by a wire flitting over a pulley during the
top.

Reminder: Work is finished on a physique when it moves underneath a transformation of a force.
Work is a product of a force member in a instruction of fit and
a stretch a physique moves.

Imagine a fit of A adult a ramp length x that moves
mass A a straight stretch z. This causes B to
move a same stretch x down a ramp, or a fragment x/y
of a length of that ramp, and therefore a straight stretch (x/y)z
down. We interpretation that for balance these weights and distances contingency satisfyAy = Bx, or A/B = x/y.

Returning to Stevin’s problem, regulating a same ramp, a apportionment of chain
on ramp x has length x. The apportionment on y has lengthy. The weights of sequence are in suit to a lengths, so A/B
= x/y automatically satisfies a condition for equilibrium. Therefore
the complement will not pierce on a possess initiative. The reduce loop of sequence obviously
contributes 0 that would disquiet equilibrium.

The element of practical work can be extended to torques, and in formidable form
is:

If a practical work finished by all outmost army behaving on a
particle, a firm body, or a complement of connected firm bodies with ideal
(frictionless) connectors and supports, is 0 for all practical displacements
of a system, afterwards a complement is in equilibrium.

Let’s not boot that reduce loop so casually, for it is doing something
very critical here. During any practical (imagined) motion, it is supplying
new mass to a apportionment of sequence fibbing on one side of a ramp accurately as
fast as a apportionment of sequence on a other side of a ramp loses mass. It
is provision transformation to one shred of sequence during a same rate
as momentum
is mislaid from a other segment. This, however, does 0 to urge the
PM machine’s chances of working. It is a apparatus that keeps a ramp portion
of a complement unvaried over time, even during practical motion. We will see
this routine during work (virtual work, of course) in many other incessant machine
proposals.

We competence reiterate Stevin’s element in a form some-more directly germane to devices
claimed to be incessant fit machines:

If an insincere (virtual) fit of a appurtenance formula in a final state of
a complement (the appurtenance and a interactive environment) indistinguishable
from a initial state, and 0 net work is finished on a complement during this
fit (no work in; no work out) afterwards that insincere fit will not occur.

Stevin’s element is a quite suitable initial step in examining intermittent and
wheel-type machines where a calculable array of a circle changes 0 nonetheless its
position. It is quite useful when examining those machines for that the
inventor’s initial infrequent investigate (usually containing a smirch of physics
or reasoning) leads us to consider “That appurtenance will positively turn.” It immediately discredits a Honnecort circle and also Stevin’s strange problem of a ball-chain on ramps. Most
of a content examples of Stevin’s element uncover customarily cases where the
initial and final states of a complement are unequivocally apparently opposite (things
are in opposite places). But a genuine appetite of a element is that it
can also be practical to cases where a final state “looks customarily like” the
initial state.

For machines that have a “cyclic” function (most do) a investigate contingency be
carried out over a finish cycle, for appetite competence be stored during partial of
a cycle and expelled during another part.

Refer behind to a double ramp picture. If a sequence is illusory to undergo
a practical fit carrying any spin to a position assigned by a next
one, afterwards a initial and final states are identical. Stevin’s principle
then says that a sequence will not of itself bear this motion.

Top.

Friction and idealizations.

To explain that a device “Will not work because of friction”
diverts a courtesy from distant some-more elemental flaws of a proposal.
Friction is ever-present in nature. Yet, in examining PM proposals, it is
useful to assume frictionless components, for in all non-trivial PM proposals,
friction is never a solitary problem. Remove all dissipative routine such as
friction, use idealized components, and during best a inclination will be only
our form (1). They cycle uselessly eternally nonetheless additional submit or output
work.

Frictionless components do not violate elemental perceivable principles
of physics. If removal
of all dissipative processes formula in a incessant fit device of type
(1), we know you’ve substantially finished a investigate correctly, creation no blunders.

But other idealizations do violate elemental macroscopic classical
physics principles. Remember that we are vocalization now of a perceivable (large scale)
physics processes, not those during a tiny scale of atoms or smaller.

Massless components that are means of exerting army on other components
would violate Newton’s second law.

Components that strive army nonetheless concomitant greeting army would
violate Newton’s third law.

Perfectly firm bodies means of exerting army on other such bodies violate
Newton’s laws also. All matter can be dense or stretched, giving rise
to effervescent forces. If bodies were ideally firm we’d have gigantic forces
behaving for tiny times. We can't assume such things in a real
world.

A member perceivable physique can't be celebrated in dual places simultaneously.

No information can transport between dual distant points instantaneously. This
is another reason given ideally firm bodies can’t exist. If we pushed on
one finish of a ideally firm stick, a other finish would pierce instantaneously.
But that’s not possible, for it would meant a other finish perceived information about
a pull instantaneously.

Mass can't disappear from one place and time and reappear at
another place and time.

Top.

Tapping quantum weirdness

Nature’s prohibitions listed in a final territory request to perceivable (large scale) earthy objects. Is it illusive that these can be disregarded on a tiny (small scale) star of atoms and smaller entities? Certain now renouned suppositional fanciful ideas advise that.

Nature does not demarcate incessant motion. No laws of inlet would be disregarded by something existent eternally in a non-zero appetite state. Presumably composed atoms can do that. Whatever is “going on” within an atom continues undivided eternally if a atom is left undisturbed. What inlet does seem to demarcate is a complement that produces useful work in volume incomparable than a appetite input.

In these pages we have indeed neglected tide speculations in production such as fibre theory, opening energy, black holes, wormholes, dim energy, dim matter, together universes, etc. I’m substantially not amply associating about these matters to plead them effectively. we do note that many of these concepts are “virtual” entities that are partial of a mathematical theory, nonetheless are not directly observable. And when these do have understandable (experimentally measurable) consequences, inlet seems to demarcate them being converted to continual outlay of useful work on a perceivable scale. So a hopes of creation a perceivable incessant fit device formed on them is apparently futile. The some-more we learn about nature, a some-more justification we amass that “Nature abhors perceivable incessant motion.”

A unequivocally engaging book deliberating these matters is “How to Build a Time Machine” by Paul Davies. It is now out in paperback from Penguin Books during $13.00. The cover content says “A quick…lucid frisk [through] wormholes, exposed singularities, choice universe, vast strings, outlandish matter, disastrous energy, hypothetical mass, gravitational time dilation, rising entropy and descending information” San Francisco Chronicle. Davies’ book concludes that inlet does have taboos: “No time machines, no incessant fit machines, no exposed singularities! Etc.”

Top.

What about “free energy”?

When examining PM proposals, one contingency watch out for “hidden” appetite sources.
If a sequence of a Stevin appurtenance consisted of interlinked cylindrical rollers,
it competence be finished to pierce if there were a little battery and a engine within
each cylinder. Many exemplary incessant fit appurtenance scams are finished this
way. But in this case, a initial and final states are not identical, for
the state of a batteries changes as appetite is drawn from them. Some of the
early fake demos of PM machines competence good have been driven by hidden
internal stored energy, permitting a massive, well-balanced and low friction
wheel to spin for a unequivocally prolonged time before negligence perceptibly.

“Free-energy” enthusiasts explain that if a appurtenance were drumming some invisible
energy source that fills all of space, that appetite would, like a hidden
motors, keep a appurtenance going, even nonetheless we could not detect a free
energy source by any other initial means. In effect, a appurtenance itself
would be a “free appetite detector”. They remind us that physicists once
ridiculed a suspicion of appetite stored in atoms. Yes, they did, as these quotes
indicate.

There is no odds male can ever daub a appetite of a atom. The glib
conjecture of utilizing atomic appetite when a spark has run out is a completely
unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a
few fool-proof inclination into a good infancy of elements that constitute
a bulk of a world, and they have no appetite to give adult in a process
of disintegration.

– Robert A. Millikan (1863-1953) [1928 debate to a Chemists’ Club (New
York)]

…any one who expects a source of appetite from a mutation of these
atoms is articulate moonshine…

– Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) [1933]

So, do a “free-energy” proponents have a current indicate here? Are they justified
in devoting their time to seeking a “free-energy” or “over-unity” systems?
Should mainstream scientists take adult such investigate to solve a appetite problems?
I consider not. Scientists generally pursue something customarily when there’s clear
evidence indicating to a need for extending, clarifying or differently changing earthy theory. So
far, not one throw of convincing or even revealing justification for a existence
of this “free-energy” has been seen. To lapse to a comparison with atomic
energy, a initial doubt of Millikan, Rutherford, and Einstein was
well justified. But they altered their opinions as new justification came in.
Their initial doubt did not in any approach retard a swell toward discovery
and function of atomic energy. My camber is that if there is anything like
“free-energy” anywhere in a universe, it will not be detected by the
kind of people now creation furious and ungrounded claims about it, nor by the
methods they are regulating to try to daub it. It helps to have justification for,
and know something about,
a source of appetite before one attempts to figure out how to implement it. All
the skill in a star can’t remove appetite from something that isn’t there, has no appetite to extract, or no approach to modify it to useful work.

What about illusive “accidental” find of giveaway appetite by some basement
PM tinkerer? Weren’t X-rays detected accidentally, when no one even suspected
their existence and positively had no suspicion what they were? Yes, that’s one
of a (very few) examples of a truly random critical find in physics.
Quite a array of people stumbled on justification for X-rays before Röntgen
but unsuccessful to follow adult with experiments to see what was going on.
Anti-serendipity? But during that same duration of story we have a interesting
phenomena of other people “discovering” things that did not exist,
such as N-rays, and after M-rays (mitogenetic radiation). So in that category
will “free energy” fall, if and when someone claims to have found initial justification for it? Only time will tell.

On a whole, systematic discoveries, even random ones, are many likely
to be made, investigated, and exploited by folks who have a unequivocally good
understanding of a applicable beliefs of existent science. Ignorance of
well determined scholarship causes many frank and dedicated people to waste
lives and careers chasing moonbeams. The frank PM proposals of a past
illustrate a fact that their inventors did not have sufficient understanding.
Many of them believed that such bargain wasn’t necessary,
or they deserted it out of hand.

Top

Buoyancy engine #1

John Phin describes
this one in his exemplary book Seven Follies of Science (Van Nostrand,
1906), attributing it to a match named “Power”.

A J-shaped tube A, Fig. 14, is open during both ends nonetheless tapers during a lower
end, as shown. A well-greased string wire C passes over a circle B and through
a little opening of a tube with little or no friction, and also without
leakage. The tube is afterwards filled with water. The wire above a line WX balances
over a pulley, and so does that subsequent a line YZ. The wire in a tube
between these lines is carried by a water, while a wire on a other side
of a pulley between these lines is pulled downward by gravity.

Phin says that a “inventor offers this device as a kind of nonplus rather
than as a solemn try to solve a famous problem,” and Phin concludes by
asking given it will not work.

As usual, Phin misses a indicate (and a fun) of a plea in his analysis
of this puzzle. He trots out a common sore dismissals such as temperament friction,
work compulsory to hook a rope, and attrition of a wire during a water-seals,
then, assuming a box is closed, moves on to something else.

we paraphrase the
challenge, and uncover a easier picture. The well-spoken wire passes by a container
of liquid, with an inviolable frictionless sign in a bottom.

I also set a belligerent order to inhibit irrelevant responses: Assume everything
is perfect. No friction, leakless seals, ideally stretchable inviolable rope,
no gelatinous drag between wire and liquid. Even with these ideal conditions
we can simply and simply uncover that this appurtenance will not work as claimed.
Why did a contriver of this problem consider it should charm us into thinking
it competence work? It’s his word “lifted by a water”. He is, of march referring
to a expansive force of Archimedes’ principle: “A physique enthralled in liquid
experiences and roof expansive force equal to a weight of a displaced
liquid.” This element is found in any facile production textbook, but
seldom accepted by students. They use it blindly, not meaningful given it is
true nor underneath what conditions it is true, and they haven’t paid attention
to how it is derived.

The explain is that a roof expansive force on a apportionment of a wire in
the potion causes a wire to pierce roof there. This explain is false. Why?

Answer:

There is no expansive force on a rope. This dishonesty is a formed on a common
misunderstanding of Archimedes’ principle. The element requires that the
submerged physique have potion underneath it so that a net force due to a liquid
acting on a physique has nonzero roof component. The element also works
if a physique is totally immersed, with H2O above and below, or floating, with
water customarily below. After all, what is a source of a expansive force?
It is a vigour disproportion between tip and reduce surfaces. Consider
a totally enthralled cylinder with a pivot straight (very suitable in this
case). Pressure on a sides of a cylinder provides customarily craft forces
that also supplement to zero, and some-more importantly, have no straight components.
Only army due to vigour on tip and bottom surfaces have straight components.
The vigour on a bottom is incomparable than that on tip by amountr gh, where r
is a potion density. So there’s a net upward
force on a cylinder.

In this PM puzzle, there’s no potion above or subsequent a wire means of providing
an roof member of force. All a army on a wire due to a liquid
are quite horizontal, and given these army are symmetrically distributed
around a edge of a rope, they supplement to zero.

An shrewd match records that my evidence here lacks generality. He
proposes a various in that a wire passes by a potion during an angle,
say creation an angle of 45° to a vertical. Now there is liquid
above and subsequent a rope. And if there’s now a expansive force on a rope,
it positively has an roof member in a instruction of a rope, and therefore
this chronicle of a appurtenance should work. Why doesn’t it?

Solution left as use for a student. The resolution competence require
calculus. Here’s a useful hint. That Buoyant force mentioned in Archimedes’
principle is not some new “magic” force that arises when a physique is immersed.
The expansive force is a following (sum) of vigour army behaving on a immersed
body. Archimedes’ element is merely an countenance of a useful relation
between a densities of a bodies involved, ensuing from geometric laws
and a fact that vigour exerts force normal to a surface.

Top

Buoyancy engine #2

A circle in a form of a ideal globe or cylinder rotates about a frictionless
horizontal shaft. The left side is in a cover filled with water, perfect
(frictionless and leak-proof) seals around a rotating circle forestall the
liquid from escaping. The left side of a circle therefore practice an
upward expansive force due to a potion it displaces. So that side will rise,
and a circle rotates clockwise.

Answer:

All army exerted by a potion on a edge of a wheel
are normal to a wheel’s surface, and therefore pass by a wheel’s
rotation axis. All of these army have 0 pull arm with honour to this
axis. The potion therefore provides no torque about a circle pivot and the
wheel won’t turn.

Stevin’s element of practical work demolishes this PM device neatly. We know
the circle will have no focussed to stagger given if we suppose a virtual
displacement of a circle by any angle, a complement would still be just
the approach it was before, with no change in a appetite and no change in
configuration. No work is finished in a process.

Richard G. Clegg’sPerpetual
Motion Page has a crafty various of this expansive motor. Instead of a
wheel it has a torus (doughnut-shaped ring) flitting by dual seals separating
two chambers carrying liquids of opposite density. There is no axle. One half
of a ring is surrounded by liquid, inside and outside. The seals are of
course frictionless and leak-proof. There’s no spindle to yield greeting forces.
Here a army on a ring due to vigour do have roof components. Why
won’t this one work? [Picture used with accede of Richard G. Clegg.]

Answer left as use for a student.

Top

Buoyancy engine #3

This perpetual
motion appurtenance substantially dates from a midst 1800’s. The categorical drum is filled
with a liquid. In it are spin chambers filled with atmosphere (or a vacuum) and
connected by rods to a weights outside. The rods slip in frictionless
leak-proof seals, of course. As with many such due mechanisms, this picture
is some-more formidable than compulsory to illustrate a element on which
it is ostensible to work. The drawings subsequent uncover customarily one weight and one air
chamber enthralled in liquid.

When in position 1, a irresolution of a reduce globe is adequate to lift the
weight to a tip position. If a drum is now pushed so it moves counter
clockwise, a weight stays during this vast radial stretch during slightest until
it has rotated 90°.

During a subsequent entertain spin a weight has a vast pull arm. At a end
of this entertain turn, position 3, a atmosphere cover rises to a tip of the
drum, and a weight is now is during a smallest radial distance, (and smallest
lever arm) where it stays for a subsequent entertain turn. During a final quarter
turn a atmosphere chamber’s irresolution causes a weight to arise until it is at
its largest radius.

Since a torque during a second entertain spin is incomparable than during the
third entertain turn, a circle will benefit some-more appetite there than it needs to
move roof during a fourth quarter-turn.

The beliefs that are ostensible to make this thing work concede a machine
to be started by a pull in presumably direction, and it would work customarily as well
clockwise as counterclockwise. That’s a bit suspicious, isn’t it? Also, if
we suppose fit of this circle by a full cycle, a final and initial
states are indistinguishable, so Stevin’s element tells us that it won’t
turn. Yet we’d still like to investigate a sum to see accurately where the
inventor went astray.

We’ll give we a extend to buy frictionless bearings, a potion with zero
viscosity, and leak-proof frictionless seals for a mobile rods. With all
of this advantage, given will it still not work?

Solution by Ben Mitch.

Top

Buoyancy engine #4

Here’s a new serve to a museum, contributed by Dave Carvell. This one
has some innovative sum to plea your bargain of physics.

The sealed
container has dual straight tubes. The right one contains a potion (cyan)
such as water, and a unequivocally light spin (red), many lighter than a liquid.
As common we’ll let we use a potion with 0 viscosity. (We are generous
about these sum that don’t matter anyway.)

Two “gates” G1 and G2 are finished like iris diaphragms that can open and close
quickly. They are, of course, watertight when closed.

Now we all know that when a light object, like a cork, is underwater, then
released, it pops to a aspect and can even cocktail above a surface. We take
advantage of that fact. Our machine, with a viscosity-free liquid, should
allow even incomparable speed during a top. The appurtenance is started with a ball
at a bottom. As it rises, a high-tech sensor discerning opens embankment G1 to let
it through, shutting a embankment immediately, and then opening embankment G2
in time for a spin to pass through.

Since one of a gates is sealed during all times a H2O levels are maintained.
The spin pops above a aspect with some momentum, and a winding tip of
the apparatus deflects it to a other tube, where it falls, gaining speed
and transformation in a fall, adequate so that it goes underneath a potion surface
there and is bumped over into a right tube, where, of course, it begins
to rise. This should go on forever, gaining speed any cycle.

Surface tragedy and flexibility benefaction genuine problems here. But before we go
to a difficulty to find a ideal potion for this device, we should demeanour for
even some-more elemental flaws.

Solution

Top

Capillary motor

Claim:

This is one of my favorite PM proposals for severe tyro understanding.
Most students know that liquids will arise in a unequivocally slight tube, a process
being called “capillary action”. Suppose we have such a tube means of lifting
the potion to a tallness h. Now reduce a tube to a tallness reduction thanh. Or make a hole in a side subsequent a tip of a potion column.
The liquid, perplexing to arise to tallness h will afterwards brief out a top
of a tube, where a unequivocally little waterwheel can constraint a appetite as it falls.

Answer:

This is customarily approaching to fool
people who haven’t deliberate why capillary transformation occurs. The usual
textbook blueprint is shown during a left. Surface tragedy acts during a liquid
surface where it contacts a walls of a tube. These intermolecular forces
between potion and potion are incomparable than those between a potion molecules
themselves. This gives arise to a winding “meniscus” figure of a tip liquid
surface. The army around this interface act during an angle with a significant
upward member that can reason a H2O mainstay in immobile equilibrium.

The vigour of a H2O during a aspect of a fountainhead is windy pressure,
both external and inside a capillary tube. This is due to Pascal’s principle
that a vigour during all points during a given tallness within a liquid is a same.
Also, by a same principle, a vigour within a capillary tube, customarily subsequent a meniscus,
is less than windy vigour by volume rgh.
This accounts for a vigour disproportion opposite a meniscus that in spin accounts for
its shape. The atmosphere is pulling down on a meniscus, nonetheless molecular adhesion forces
around a dilemma conflict that. It acts like an effervescent piece calm during a edges.

If one now gradually lowers a tube, a upheld mainstay of potion stays a same length. The tip of a tube moves down to accommodate a meniscus. Continue to reduce a tube and finally a potion mainstay reaches a tip of a tube. But, remember, a vigour customarily subsequent a meniscus is still lower than windy pressure, so a meniscus still bulges downward. It does not brief over a tip of a tube. The potion aspect always contacts
the tip dilemma of a tube, and as a tube is lowered even more, a meniscus follows
it down.

This picture
shows situations we competence have illusory possible. The version
shown in a second figure, with a hole in a side, is simply discredited. The hole
must be smaller than a tube diameter, so it, too will vaunt aspect tension
forces. The vigour customarily inside this hole is still reduce than windy pressure, so a H2O will gush inward, not outward, and no potion will pass by it.

Pressure increases downward in a liquid, by a lawρgh where ρ is a potion density. The vigour during the
liquid aspect external a capillary tube is atmospheric. So a pressure
within a tube contingency diminution with tallness adult to a meniscus. It’s a pressure
difference opposite a meniscus that is obliged for a winding shape.
The second figure depicts an outcome that customarily can’t happen.

Top

Capillary wheels

Claim:

This suspicion seemed in a association mainstay of the
April 22, 1911 emanate of Scientific American.
The editor invited readers to “search out a misconception of this inventive device.”

Imagine dual unequivocally delicately machined wheels with together axes on frictionless
bearings. They are partly enthralled in a liquid. There’s a very narrow
space between a prosaic portions of a wheels, causing potion to be drawn
up between, by capillary action. The weight of this piece of potion exerts
downward army on both wheels; therefore they should stagger in opposite
directions as shown by a arrows. Since a force is small, a speed will
be low also, giving a capillary mainstay copiousness of time to arise to compensate
for this motion, progressing a plain height.

As usual, ignore
friction and viscosity. The mainstay of potion is positively being supported
by an roof force supposing by a wheels. Newton’s third law requires that
the mainstay of potion exerts a downward force on a wheels. This positively provides
a torque on both wheels. So given don’t they move?

Another version, regulating crane and belts is shown during a left. The principle
is a same, so we pattern this to work customarily as good as a circle version.

This is another box where uncelebrated initial and final states and
Stevin’s element should have aborted this plan during a unpractical stage.

Answer and discussion.

Top

George Sinclair’s siphon.

This curious
device appears in a 1669 book on pneumatics (in Latin) by truth professor
George Sinclair of Glasgow University. Dircks mentions it in his 1870 bookPerpetuum Mobile (p. 42) from that we took this picture.

Apparently a tip tuber has reduced vigour of atmosphere within it, sustaining
the potion drawn adult from a dish. One finish of a siphon transfers potion from
this tuber adult by a focussed rod and behind to a dish. This detriment of liquid
from a tuber is transposed by some-more potion drawn from a dish, due to the
low atmosphere vigour in a bulb. Result: an unconstrained dissemination of liquid. A
little H2O circle competence be run by a H2O exiting from a siphon into
the dish. Well, maybe not.

Sinclair contingency have suspicion this device flattering neat, for he clinging 18 pages
to contention of a merits. You, dear reader, should simply explode it
in a few paragraphs.

First, let’s be unequivocally transparent that Bob’s BS Gravity
Engine is a parody, a joke. His vigilant was to tease, and amuse, and to
tweak physicists and engineers whose bargain of production was shaky.
It was a plea to readers to uncover conclusively presumably or not it could
work, given a “decreasing gravity” assumption. He was crafty never to
fully answer that doubt or to explain a joke.

The suspicion that a concept gravitational consistent competence be declining
came out of suppositional fanciful work of Paul A. M. Dirac. In 1937 he
suggested that a concept gravitational consistent G competence be
weakening, proportional to a age of a universe. He even likely that
in 10 billion years it competence be customarily half what it is today. Since afterwards the
suspicion that elemental constants, including a speed of light, competence change
over time has preoccupied suppositional theorists. It has also preoccupied new-age
wackos, who shamelessly adjust and debase a suspicion to fit their possess agendas.

Obviously a BS engine falls into my category (2) and presumably (4).

Stevin’s element does not kill this proposal, for a initial and final
states of a complement (including a environment) after any cycle are not
identical. This circle would work equally good in presumably direction, however,
that is always suspicious.

Scott Morris discussed some PM machines in OMNI repository in 1990 (July, p.
98 and 99; Aug p. ?), and quotes Bob Schadewald as observant “My description
is a pointed deception. The quickness of a relocating weight will never exceed
what it was when it upheld a bottom, passed center, a initial time, even
if there is no friction. The weight competence collect adult speed during a top, nonetheless never
at a bottom, so there is never any genuine speedup in a wheel.”

How does Bob arrive during that conclusion? Can this astonishing outcome be justified
by facile physics? And given does Bob contend “the weight may pick
up speed during a top, nonetheless never during a bottom”?

Answer and discussion.

Top

Simanek’s bouncing spin engine

This PM offer works customarily as good during Bob Schadewald’s Gravity Engine (SGE)
and it competence be easier to analyze. Doing so competence strew some light on the
principles behind a SGE.

Bob expel his SGE in a form of a wheel. This introduces a underline of rotation
that is a “red herring” for some people. They consider that a antithesis somehow
depends on array or requires care of centrifugal effects. It
doesn’t, as this non-rotating bouncing spin engine illustrates.

Inventor reads by light powered by
electricity supposing by a roof transducer of
a bouncing spin engine. He’s wearing earplugs.

A spin bounces adult and down between building and ceiling, both firm and massive.
The bounces are insincere elastic, that is, a ball’s quickness after impact
is a same as before impact, nonetheless with topsy-turvy direction.

Now suppose that a gravitational consistent g is solemnly nonetheless steadily
decreasing. The spin is expelled during rest from a ceiling. The spin attains
a certain speed when it reaches a floor, and rebounds with that same speed.
But given g is now smaller, a spin still has a little velocity
when it hits a ceiling. Clearly this means that on execution of this
ceiling-to-floor-to-ceiling cycle it has gained a little volume of kinetic
energy, that we could remove with a somewhat fragile roof panel. The
panel would take customarily that additional volume of energy, bringing a spin to
rest there momentarily. The spin would afterwards start a subsequent cycle with zero
speed, as in a prior cycle. The gravitational force, nonetheless slightly
smaller than before, would means a spin to tumble to a building and bounce
back to a ceiling, where we again take a additional appetite gained in this
cycle, and so on forever, or until sobriety runs out, whichever comes first.

The assumptions of ideally effervescent impact and gigantic mass building are no
more irrational in posing this apparent antithesis than a arrogance of
frictionless orientation in a wheel. Given these assumptions we still ought
to be means to investigate a appurtenance and uncover presumably it could work as claimed.

Answer and discussion.Top

The Gravity defense engine

Claim:

This offer is during slightest a century old. Classic simplicity! A circle has
a frictionless axle. Now customarily insert a sobriety defense underneath one side, making
that side lighter and this will trigger and say rotation. Indeed, you’d
better remove appetite from it continually, or put a stop on it, or it will
spin so discerning it will rip itself apart.

I’ve mostly seen this nonetheless anxiety to a inventor. If anyone knows who a contriver is, greatfully let me know. Nicola Tesla described it,
in his essay “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy” in Century Illustrated Magazine, Jun 1900.

It is possible, and even probable, that there will be, in time, other resources of appetite non-stop up, of that we have no believe now. We competence even find ways of requesting army such as draw or sobriety for pushing appurtenance nonetheless regulating any other means. Such realizations, nonetheless rarely improbable, are not impossible. An instance will best communicate an suspicion of what we can wish to achieve and what we can never attain. Imagine a hoop of some allied member incited ideally loyal and organised to spin in frictionless orientation on a craft missile above a ground. This disk, being underneath a above conditions ideally balanced, would rest in any position. Now, it is illusive that we competence learn how to make such a hoop stagger invariably and perform work by a force of sobriety nonetheless any serve bid on a part; nonetheless it is ideally unfit for a hoop to spin and to do work nonetheless any force from a outside. If it could do so, it would be what is designated scientifically as a “perpetuum mobile,” a appurtenance formulating a possess ground power. To make a hoop stagger by a force of sobriety we have customarily to invent a shade opposite this force. By such a shade we could forestall this force from behaving on one half of a disk, and a array of a latter would follow. At least, we can't repudiate such a probability until we know accurately a inlet of a force of gravity. Suppose that this force were due to a transformation allied to that of a tide of atmosphere flitting from above toward a core of a earth. The outcome of such a tide on both halves of a hoop would be equal, and a latter would not stagger ordinarily; nonetheless if one half should be rhythmical by a image impediment a movement, afterwards it would turn.

Critics will be discerning to observe that if one imagines a practical rotation
through a little angle, a circle is physically a same as before. The small
portion during a bottom that was in a gravitational margin becomes weightless
over a sobriety shield, nonetheless during a same time an equal shred of a wheel
moves from easy condition behind into a gravitational field. They therefore
argue that 0 has changed, and there is no reason there should be such
motion. This is a good focus of Stevin’s element of practical work.

The opposite contriver competence disagree thusly: Remove a sobriety shield. Imagine an equivalent:
a half-wheel. It would stagger underneath a transformation of sobriety and afterwards continue
to pitch like a pendulum. You can frequency repudiate that if one half of a wheel
suddenly had no gravitational force on it, a other half would pierce due
to a lunatic torque.

This suggests
a improved design. Don’t use a wheel. Use an lunatic weight as in a SGE
(see prior item). Start a appurtenance with a weight during a tip of its
range. Give it a slight poke toward a unshielded side, and it will fall,
gaining kinetic energy. This kinetic appetite during a bottom stays unchanged
during a roof fit over a shield, and is still there when a weight
reaches a top, carrying it into a unshielded side where it picks adult still
more energy, and so on forever. What prevents that?

There’s always a probability that we competence assume some partial of a machine
that is itself physically impossible. If one too straightforwardly grants a possibility,
much time can be squandered examining a other tools of a machine. Here the
suspect partial is a sobriety shield. Can we simply and conclusively uncover that
a sobriety defense is or is not possible? Can we uncover that a unequivocally existence
would violate some elemental law?

This nonplus doesn’t need a ideal shield. A defense that reduces the
gravitational force by customarily a few percent would seem to accommodate a requirements
of a incessant fit machine. We need to show, by facile production that (1)
the unequivocally existence of such a defense would violate elemental laws of physics,
or (2) even with such a shield, a circle would not spin eternally and
would not benefit speed or (3) some elemental law of production is wrong, and
so is Stevin’s element and a laws of thermodynamics.

The ground for this circle says that it will customarily benefit speed in one direction.
If incited in a other instruction it would remove speed. This competence be a clue.
Stevin’s element demolishes a chronicle with a uniform wheel, for a initial
and final states of a complement and sourroundings are matching for any virtual
displacement of a wheel. Therefore a circle can't pierce on a own. So
why did we incorrectly consider that it should spin by itself? Stevin’s
principle also discredits a individualist weight version, for a virtual
displacement of one array earnings a circle an matching state. But that
doesn’t assistance us know what’s going on during any cycle.

Discussion and answer.

Top

The Classic captivating defense engine

A reader informs us that a device of this arrange was given as an additional credit
homework problem by an MIT highbrow behind in 1985.
Chris Cheng, a high propagandize tyro from Sydney, Australia, sent us a simple
version, from that this one developed by a routine of tinkering.

How it’s ostensible to work.

Magnetic helmet materials are available. They aren’t ideal shields,
but for a functions of this engine they don’t need to be perfect.

A openly rotatable armature in a core consists of a permanent magnet
partly lonesome with a captivating defense (solid black). The defense has openings
at a right, nearby a poles. An outdoor ring has magnets in a radial array
with their north poles inside, resolutely fixed to a firm frame. These magnets
are long, so a south poles are during a extremely incomparable radius than the
north poles. The captivating margin from a magnet stick decreases in strength
with distance.

The defense apertures assent any armature stick to “see” customarily a integrate of
the magnets of a outdoor ring. Each armature stick is influenced essentially by
the north poles of a ring, those being nearest. Therefore, in a position
shown in a picture, a N stick of a armature is repelled, experiencing
a force to a left. The S stick of a armature is attracted, experiencing
a force to a right. These dual army make a couple, that rotates a armature
clockwise.

Classic simplicity! If we wanted to urge it, those outdoor magnets could
be swung adult or down so they were in a cylindrical array of magnets with their
axes parallel. Then a identical armature could be placed in a craft of the
S poles, handling on a same spindle as a armature in a craft of a N
poles. This should double a appetite output!

We counsel a reader that this appurtenance has sum that could be subtle
and formidable to investigate in detail. Gauss’s and Stokes’ laws in matrix calculus
form competence be compulsory for a full analysis. However, this appurtenance has a simple
and elemental smirch that can be appreciated even during a rudimentary physics
level.

Answer and discussion.

Top

Re: Answers left as use for a student. Send your answers to a address
shown during a right. The
earliest good answer(s) that arrive competence be posted here, with credit to author.
I will post (at my discretion) answers that are facile to explain, clear,
correct, perceptive, and that kindle meditative and serve discussion.
Posted answers, presumably created by me or by others, do not always represent
the final word on a given proposal. On several occasions keen readers
have beheld things we missed, or suggested easier ways to explain something.
So don’t demur to skeptically rethink given “answers”.

While we acquire acquiescence of new or innovative incessant fit puzzles,
I assume no requirement to respond in fact to all of them. In particular,
I can't be approaching to investigate deceptive proposals, overly and
unnecessarily
complicated designs, nor ideas that are simply variations of classics found
in a literature. I’ve already perceived proposals that destroy for a same
reasons already discussed above, indicating that a chairman proposing the
idea hadn’t entirely accepted this document. Also, we select not to include
devices that would require modernized arithmetic or production for detailed
analysis. we don’t like to post puzzles unless we am pretty assured what
the smirch is, and that a smirch can be explained regulating facile physics
principles.

To those inventors whose creations we select not to embody in a museum
collection, we offer this criticism and consolation:

“It competence be incessant motion, nonetheless it will take eternally to exam it.”
Cartoon by Donald Simanek.

Top

Links

Hans-Peter
Gramatke
has an glorious site (in German) covering all we ever wanted
to know about Perpetual Motion Machines. He also has a vast apportionment of
it in anEnglish version.
Hans-Peter has been an useful source of information to me while
expanding my site.

Kevin Kilty’s Perpetual Motion
web page has some good cinema and explanations. Kevin has been most
useful to me in discussions of a finer points of PMM.

Bibliography

When we initial gathered this bibliography, many of these references were rare, tough to find books. we was advantageous to have copies of them. Now [2012] many of them are accessible as giveaway ebooks. Others competence be had in unequivocally inexpensive reprint editions. There’s now no forgive for any carefree incessant fit appurtenance contriver to be ignorant of a prolonged story of this subject.

Gardner, Martin Fads and Fallacies in a Name of Science. Dover, 1952, 1957. This is a classic. This book has no section on incessant motion, nonetheless Gardner’s comments on a psychology of pseudoscientists and cranks relates equally good to many incessant motionists. See a subsequent anxiety for his comments on incessant motion.

Hiscox, Gardner D., M.E.Mechanical Appliances and Novelties of Construction.
Normal W. Henley Publ. Co., 1927.Chapter23, accessible online, is a miraculous apparatus of about 60 unsuccessful automatic devices, with pictures. Inventors’ names, dates, and apparent numbers are customarily not given, nor does this source give reasons given a inclination don’t work. Hiscox’s preliminary suggests that systematic opinion is divided on a probability of incessant motion. But his outline of many of these inclination reveals that he has no doubt about their impossibility, and he seems to be observant “Of march we can see given these apparently won’t work, so we don’t need to spell it out.” Alas, that
is not during all apparent to many inventors, even today, who peddle teenager variations of these aged and discredited ideas, entirely assured that they must work. If we have customarily invented a clearly miraculous incessant fit machine, you’d improved demeanour here to see presumably it has been finished before. If it has, we can be certain it doesn’t work.

Jastrow, Joseph. The Story of Human Error. D. Appleton- Century Company,
1936. Chapter on “Error in Physics,” by W. F. G. Swann. Books for Libraries.

Moore, Clara Bloomfield. Keely and His Discoveries. (Reprint edition, with foreword by Leslie Shepard, University Books, 1972?. Original edition, 1893(?).)
Mrs. Moore was one of Keely’s many true supporters. Keely’s explanations of his theories were unintelligible even to those sensitive to his work, and this book provides many examples of this.

Ord-Hume, Arthur W. J. G. Perpetual Motion. St Martins, 1978. Ord-Hume is an engineer, and has created extensively on antique clocks and other mechanisms. But his arrogant “refutations” of many of a incessant fit machines are pardonable and misleading. Some parts, quite section 6, are formidable to follow. But, a book has a trait of still being in print, in paperback, and as a chronological consult of a theme it is good value owning. However, a drawings in a Barnes and Noble reprint book are not scarcely so clear.

Verance, Percy (Pseudonym!). Perpetual Motion. 20th Century Enlightenment
Specialty Co., 1916. This is a compliance and precipitation of member from Dircks’
books, “for a ubiquitous reader”, and has many of a strange illustrations. It is apparently a Rosicrucian publication, partial of a array called: History, Explanation and Prophecy Illustrated. Warning: The crafty pseudonym has been appropriated by several people recently, who have no tie with a unknown author of this book.